earthquakes

i have been reading the FAQ, and the slight see-saw effect is caused by minor earthquakes. so, what causes these earthquakes, how can eathquakes happen in a FE with no tectonic plates, why do these earthquakes happen everyday at a regular time. and volcanoes? where does the magma come from, as thier is no mantle and what causes them.
 

Its simple my friend    lava comes from a wormhole connected to the bottom of earth

There are plates, and probably a mantle equivalent.

if there is a mantle, then the flate earth must by really thick. and what stops the mantle falling away from the bottom of the earth?

The UA is pushing on the bottom of the earth.

How can plate tectonics exist on a flat earth? it is obvious the our continents originated from one super continent (i forget the name) by deep see marine fossils found hundreds of metres above sea level. Proof indicates that the european plate is moving away from america. To where exactle on this flat earth? off the edge?

Also this flat molten core theory, how the hell can that work? The core has to be solid and comprising of high levels of radioactive decay to create a molten matle, if this were the case for a flat earth, all the heat would be concentrated onto the very centre, causing a massive hole to be melted in the earth's crust, Do you see a huge hole in the middle of the med? no.

Flat earth theory of molten core and active plates [OVER]

How can plate tectonics exist on a flat earth?

The same way they exist on an RE.

To where exactle on this flat earth? off the edge?

It was Pangaea. And that's certainly possible. But it would take a hell of a long time.

Also this flat molten core theory, how the hell can that work? The core has to be solid and comprising of high levels of radioactive decay to create a molten matle, if this were the case for a flat earth, all the heat would be concentrated onto the very centre, causing a massive hole to be melted in the earth's crust, Do you see a huge hole in the middle of the med? no.

No one ever mentioned the word core, only you did.

Quote from: SparteX on June 14, 2007, 07:29:04 AM

Also this flat molten core theory, how the hell can that work? The core has to be solid and comprising of high levels of radioactive decay to create a molten matle, if this were the case for a flat earth, all the heat would be concentrated onto the very centre, causing a massive hole to be melted in the earth's crust, Do you see a huge hole in the middle of the med? no.

No one ever mentioned the word core, only you did.

Still valid though 

Still valid though 

The fact that volcanic activity and molten mantle appear away from the Earth's core would prove otherwise. It clearly isn't just focused on the center. Not to mention the center of a flat Earth is the Arctic, so it'd be melting like crazy if it was focused on the center and penetrating the surface.

You know what you people just pick and choose the science you follow dont you. You really are a bunch of tards. I'm not a narrow minded person, im open to all sorts of creationist theories (religious and scientific), but with such overwhelming proof that the earth is round I don't see how you can't believe. In the end all your rebuttals are based on speculation or that everything is a conspiracy when the truth is that you are sad, lonely, friendless little people who would rather construct a stupid theory to believe to have something to talk about with people (no it doesn't make you popular) then accept something scientifically proven.

Psst, I don't believe in a flat Earth. God I love people's assumptions.

You know what you people just pick and choose the science you follow dont you. You really are a bunch of tards. I'm not a narrow minded person, im open to all sorts of creationist theories (religious and scientific), but with such overwhelming proof that the earth is round I don't see how you can't believe. In the end all your rebuttals are based on speculation or that everything is a conspiracy when the truth is that you are sad, lonely, friendless little people who would rather construct a stupid theory to believe to have something to talk about with people (no it doesn't make you popular) then accept something scientifically proven.

Haha, you obviously don't know the regulars here.  That's the most BS I've ever read.

Quote from: jt_havok91 on June 14, 2007, 08:18:12 AM

You know what you people just pick and choose the science you follow dont you. You really are a bunch of tards. I'm not a narrow minded person, im open to all sorts of creationist theories (religious and scientific), but with such overwhelming proof that the earth is round I don't see how you can't believe. In the end all your rebuttals are based on speculation or that everything is a conspiracy when the truth is that you are sad, lonely, friendless little people who would rather construct a stupid theory to believe to have something to talk about with people (no it doesn't make you popular) then accept something scientifically proven.

Haha, you obviously don't know the regulars here.  That's the most BS I've ever read.

You obviously don't read your own posts.

Most of our posts mock the dumb statements posed by ignorant newcomers.

Most of our posts mock the dumb statements posed by ignorant newcomers.

 Ahhh. But we are not the ignorant ones, the FE'ers are.

Ahhh. But we are not the ignorant ones, the FE'ers are.

Can you demonstrate that the earth is round without an appeal to authority?

Quote

Ahhh. But we are not the ignorant ones, the FE'ers are.

Can you demonstrate that the earth is round without an appeal to authority?

Yes. Sunspots.xlsx, for one.

Tom's new favourite phrase: Appeal to authority.

Quote

Ahhh. But we are not the ignorant ones, the FE'ers are.

Can you demonstrate that the earth is round without an appeal to authority?

Can you demonstrate that the earth is flat without refering to scientists nobody has heard of, books that don't exists, and points with no proof?

Yes. Sunspots.xlsx, for one.

The sun is not the earth.

Can you demonstrate that the earth is flat without refering to scientists nobody has heard of, books that don't exists, and points with no proof?

Look out your window. The earth is flat by pretense.

Quote

Yes. Sunspots.xlsx, for one.

The sun is not the earth.

Quote

Can you demonstrate that the earth is flat without refering to scientists nobody has heard of, books that don't exists, and points with no proof?

Look out your window. The earth is flat by pretense.

Actually if you travelled to many of the places i have been (which you don't sound to have travelled at all) they are high enough and the surrounding to see the earth's curvature on the horizon thanks to it being an island, i plan a return trip for the forth time in summer next year, i shall take a wide angle photo and post it for you.

Quote

Yes. Sunspots.xlsx, for one.

The sun is not the earth.
...

You're right, of course, but the workbook still provides each and every individual the opportunity during any time the Sun can be seen to see for himself or herself that RE predicts reality better than FE.

Sorry there appear to be some conflicting statements here, do you FE'ers believe the sun to be spherical or a flat disk?

Sorry there appear to be some conflicting statements here, do you FE'ers believe the sun to be spherical or a flat disk?

This one of those cases where the answer seems to change based on the challenge. If you point out that you can see sunspots move across the face of the Sun and return as predicted by a rotating Sun, you'll sometimes hear that FE considers the Sun to be a sphere. If you argue that the "spotlight" hypothesis requires a flat Sun, you'll sometimes hear that FE considers the Sun to be a disc. The FAQ is silent on this point.

But only something comprising of nuclear fusion on a collossal scale could produce so much light and heat, and such reactions only take place in a spherical nature, so that would suggest a spherical sun? Also, it would HAVE to be spherical to emit light in all directions in order for us to view distant planets.

But only something comprising of nuclear fusion on a collossal scale could produce so much light and heat, and such reactions only take place in a spherical nature, so that would suggest a spherical sun? Also, it would HAVE to be spherical to emit light in all directions in order for us to view distant planets.

Oddly enough, the dogplatter (2007) variation holds that the light of the stars and planets is caused by friction as they move over the UA (which in his model reaches to the farthest object, but not the Sun or the Moon).

Light cannot be caused by friction, only thermal and in some cases electrical energy are produced. His arguement is invalid

Light cannot be caused by friction, only thermal and in some cases electrical energy are produced. His arguement is invalid
...

Sorry, I have to disagree. Thermal emissions are infra-red light. If he can imagine a Universe with a rigid structure stretching through the vastness of the Universe, invisible, massless, and undetected, then he can imagine a magic blue-shift too. I do agree that his argument is less likely that the theory that Santa Claus delivers presents to every good boy and girl on Christmas Eve, though.

wether the sun is flat or not makes no difference to my question, but i do find it quite intersting. i just want to know what causes these earthquakes that make the tides? if tectonic plates exist, then surely one of the plates will eventually go over the edge. if they start to spread out, surely the ice wall will crack if it is on moren than one plate, so the oceans will flow out into space.

wether the sun is flat or not makes no difference to my question, but i do find it quite intersting. i just want to know what causes these earthquakes that make the tides? if tectonic plates exist, then surely one of the plates will eventually go over the edge. if they start to spread out, surely the ice wall will crack if it is on moren than one plate, so the oceans will flow out into space.

Exactly, if plate tectonics work the same on a flat earth as it does with our round earth, then, for one this moulten core would melt straight through the crust as there would be nothing gravitational force to  to stop it melting upwards or downwards. two it would melt either the 150' ice wall or the 50,000' ice wall (wish you guy's would get your story straight ¬¬) only a spherical earth could support plate tectonics as one plate has to slip underneeth another, only on a spherical earth would be able to create the angles and pressure necassary to cause this